N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioners are the tenants of an accommodation of which respondents 2 to 7 are the landlords. A suit was instituted by respondents 2 to 7 for ejectment and arrears of rent against the petitioner. 19th May, 1977, was the date of first hearing according to the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court. This finding has not been set aside by respondent No. 1. The Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissed the suit in so far as the relief for ejectment was concerned on the ground that the petitioners having deposited the entire amount contemplated by Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the first date of hearing, viz., 19th May, 1977, were entitled to be relieved against their liability for eviction. Aggrieved, by that order respondents 2 to 7 preferred a revision before the District Judge which has been allowed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Bareilly, respondent No. 1 on 12th August, 1978, on the ground that the deposit which was made by the petitioners on the first date of the hearing, viz. 19th May, 1977, did not represent the entire amount which ought to have been deposited in pursuance of Section 20 (4) of the Act. It is this order of respondent No. 1 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioners' that the entire amount as contemplated by Section 20 (4) was deposited on 19th May, 1977, which was the first date of hearing and the view taken by respondent No. 1 suffers from a manifest error of law.
(3.) Having heard counsel for the petitioners at some length I find it difficult to accept the said submission. As is clear from paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, rent with effect from 1st April, 1975, at the rate of Rupees 18.75 p. in respect of the accommodation in question was due. A copy of the application which was made by petitioners in the court of the Judge, Small Causes, on 19th May, 1977, has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Its perusal indicates that a sum of Rs. 243.75 p. representing rent of 13 months in respect of the accommodation in question was claimed to have been deposited by them under Section 30 of the Act. It was thereafter asserted that the amount of rent still due calculated up to 31st May, 1977, came to Rs. 243.75 p. Adding to that the amount of costs of the suit and counsel fee etc. the total sum came to Rs. 400/-. Admittedly it was this sum of Rs. 400/- alone which was deposited on 19th May, 1977. If rent from 1st April, 1975, to 31st May, 1977, at the rate of Rs. 18.75 p. per month is calculated it comes to Rs. 487.50 p. the period being 26 months. When the sum of Rs. 400/- alone was deposited on 19th May, 1977, which admittedly included costs of the suit and counsel fee etc. it would obviously be not right to say that what was deposited on 19th May, 1977, represented the rent due from 1st April, 1975, to 31st May, 1977, together with the costs of the suit, counsel fee etc. Indeed there is no scope for doubt on this point in view of the specific assertions made in this behalf not only in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit but also in the application made by the petitioners themselves on 19th May, 1977, that the rent was due from 1st April, 1975. For claiming the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act the petitioners obviously wanted an adjustment of the rent of 13th months deposited by them under Section 30 of the Act. In this behalf after a perusal of the material placed before him by the parties, respondent No. 1 has recorded a finding that the amount of rent which had been deposited by the petitioners under Section 30 of the Act had been deposited not under sub-section (1) but under sub-section (2) thereof. This finding being based on appraisal of evidence is unassailable and has indeed not been challenged before me.;